Proving Spontaneity of Post-Impact WTC Towers Collapse

a reply to: MrBig2430


No sir, it's not been proven, it has been claimed, it has been alleged.

It has not been proved.

The towers were designed to withstand strikes from airliners, and the buildings performed as designed. The buildings met the fire code, and fire code enforcement paid off. That is why the firemen ascended a 110 story modern building with fires burning on a few floors--no modern building has ever collapsed from fires burning on a few floors. Indeed, a handful of modern buildings in the US and elsewhere have burned for many long hours and not collapsed. Some were repaired and put back into service.

Neither you nor NIST has proved anything at all except gross ignorance of how buildings perform during fire.

You have made false allegations and have proved nothing at all except an embarrassing dishonesty.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


No sir, it's not been proven, it has been claimed, it has been alleged.

It has not been proved.

The towers were designed to withstand strikes from airliners, and the buildings performed as designed. The buildings met the fire code, and fire code enforcement paid off. That is why the firemen ascended a 110 story modern building with fires burning on a few floors--no modern building has ever collapsed from fires burning on a few floors. Indeed, a handful of modern buildings in the US and elsewhere have burned for many long hours and not collapsed. Some were repaired and put back into service.

Neither you nor NIST has proved anything at all except gross ignorance of how buildings perform during fire.

You have made false allegations and have proved nothing at all except an embarrassing dishonesty.

Can you post a close up p picture of the giant hole in the exoskeleton frame of the WTC buildings and explain to me how you believe that the structures were sound and the structural integrity was not compromised?

It was not just the fire that brought the buildings down. It was a chain of events that led to the design specifications of the towers to be exceeded and then total complete loss of structural integrity.

Since you seem so confident in your approach, I would like you to honestly post a picture of the damage and explain why you think that the towers should not have collapsed.

The fires, as you so repeatedly saying, were not the only factors in the failing of the structural integrity.

By the way, I am assuming that you can answer this without being embarrassingly dishonest.

Thank you

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

How does an office fire 93 stories up cause a spontaneous collapse of all 110 stories in 10-11 sec ?

Only people without degrees talk like this.
You have only to ask your local fire department why they won't enter a burning Walmart and you will have your answer.

Only people with no common sense would say what you just said.


The roof at Wal-Mart has no fire protection and is designed to allow it to collapse in a major fire. That keeps fire fighters outside with their hoses pointed at the roof.

Your degree told you the reason fire fighters don't go into burning Wal-Mart's is why the towers on 9/11 collapsed?

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


No sir, it's not been proven, it has been claimed, it has been alleged.

It has not been proved.

The towers were designed to withstand strikes from airliners, and the buildings performed as designed. The buildings met the fire code, and fire code enforcement paid off. That is why the firemen ascended a 110 story modern building with fires burning on a few floors--no modern building has ever collapsed from fires burning on a few floors. Indeed, a handful of modern buildings in the US and elsewhere have burned for many long hours and not collapsed. Some were repaired and put back into service.

Neither you nor NIST has proved anything at all except gross ignorance of how buildings perform during fire.

You have made false allegations and have proved nothing at all except an embarrassing dishonesty.

Can you post a close up p picture of the giant hole in the exoskeleton frame of the WTC buildings and explain to me how you believe that the structures were sound and the structural integrity was not compromised?

It was not just the fire that brought the buildings down. It was a chain of events that led to the design specifications of the towers to be exceeded and then total complete loss of structural integrity.

Since you seem so confident in your approach, I would like you to honestly post a picture of the damage and explain why you think that the towers should not have collapsed.

The fires, as you so repeatedly saying, were not the only factors in the failing of the structural integrity.

By the way, I am assuming that you can answer this without being embarrassingly dishonest.

Thank you

I bet you are ignored. Or I see a rant how you are fooled, complicate in the government’s plot, and you are accused of believing every bit of government’s explanation for asking a thoughtful and logical question.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

.The roof at Wal-Mart has no fire protection and is designed to allow it to collapse in a major fire. That keeps fire fighters outside with their hoses pointed at the roof.

Your degree told you the reason fire fighters don't go into burning Wal-Mart's is why the towers on 9/11 collapsed?

Reason FF don't enter burning Walmart (and other "big box" retail stores ) is that the rood support are open bar joist truss

As stated have no fire proofing. The roof trusses would rapidly heat up and collapse in only minutes

Protocol would dictate fighting fires from exterior of building, charge the sprinkler system to try contain fire if possible
and use aerial ladders and master streams from apparatus to try control the fire

Wal Mart has insurance on building and contents ........

a reply to: Salander


It’s proven.

You apparently don’t have the mental capacity to understand why.

And instead have decided that nukes and no planes make sense.

That’s nuts. These two factors go hand in hand.

1- inability/unwillingness to understand reality

2- reliance on fantasy to explain things you fail to assimilate.


So, Like I’ve said before, and like all truthers, you’re either:

1- mentally impaired and can’t assimilate reality
2- trolling
3- an activist and knowingly telling lies and being outrageous in order to draw attention to your “cause”

So which is it?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Only people with no common sense would say what you just said.


The roof at Wal-Mart has no fire protection and is designed to allow it to collapse in a major fire. That keeps fire fighters outside with their hoses pointed at the roof.

And the fire protection was blown off in the impact on WTC.
Whats not to understand?
Thin steel heats quickly without fire protection.

By the way some locales require Walmart trusses to be insulated.
And they are not "designed to allow it to collapse".
It's just a result not a designed feature.

originally posted by: MrBig2430
a reply to: Salander


It’s proven.

You apparently don’t have the mental capacity to understand why.

And instead have decided that nukes and no planes make sense.

That’s nuts. These two factors go hand in hand.

1- inability/unwillingness to understand reality

2- reliance on fantasy to explain things you fail to assimilate.


So, Like I’ve said before, and like all truthers, you’re either:

1- mentally impaired and can’t assimilate reality
2- trolling
3- an activist and knowingly telling lies and being outrageous in order to draw attention to your “cause”

So which is it?

Did you just insinuate that the US governments conspiracy theory about who attacked the towers and how they collapsed is "proven"

Your completely full of # if you did.

You are in fact SO full of #, that listening to you psychoanalyze those that do not agree to you and your conspiracy theories puts you on a whole new level of bat # crazy.

I'm in awe with your belief in delusional conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Only people with no common sense would say what you just said.


The roof at Wal-Mart has no fire protection and is designed to allow it to collapse in a major fire. That keeps fire fighters outside with their hoses pointed at the roof.

And the fire protection was blown off in the impact on WTC.
Whats not to understand?
Thin steel heats quickly without fire protection.

By the way some locales require Walmart trusses to be insulated.
And they are not "designed to allow it to collapse".
It's just a result not a designed feature.

I bet you only find 1, maybe 2 pictures to prove that there was no fire protection but it doesn't matter.

The mechanics of the theorized collapse sequence is a mathematical theory. That is why there is not 1 single visual computer simulation to dramatize the event for us simpletons that don't understand that kind of math.

There is probably 100 versions of the visual dramatization of the titanic snapping in half. Not 1 of the towers collapsing due to structural damage. Not 1.

You know why that Is? I don't either for sure but my guess is because it would look unconvincing to say the least.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: MALBOSIA

.The roof at Wal-Mart has no fire protection and is designed to allow it to collapse in a major fire. That keeps fire fighters outside with their hoses pointed at the roof.

Your degree told you the reason fire fighters don't go into burning Wal-Mart's is why the towers on 9/11 collapsed?

Reason FF don't enter burning Walmart (and other "big box" retail stores ) is that the rood support are open bar joist truss

As stated have no fire proofing. The roof trusses would rapidly heat up and collapse in only minutes

Protocol would dictate fighting fires from exterior of building, charge the sprinkler system to try contain fire if possible
and use aerial ladders and master streams from apparatus to try control the fire

Wal Mart has insurance on building and contents ........

Wal-Mart is not the only tenant in those type of construction.

Your trying to tie fire fighters not entering these buildings to they are too weak to stand up to heat. And then you will say that they are designed just like WTC and therefore known to collapse if exposed to heat.

*yawn*

What you didn't explain is that these type of construction are used to house facilities of all types. Fire fighters have NO idea what is in the other side of that tiny man door they need to go through to get to the fire. It could be chemical, biological, explosive... who knows. So they don't go in. They point their hoses at the roof and extinguish the fire from the top.

Your trying to to tie these 2 construction types together as though it was common sense that those towers would collapse the way it die. Then you will say that is what was covered up if anything was. The corruption that his the fact these building were so unsafe that it is somehow now common sense they were not.

a reply to: liejunkie01


I'm well aware of the old saw "a picture is worth a thousand words", but are you one of those people who need a picture to understand things? A picture of events from 16 years ago? A picture that has been plastered all over the internet and media?

Find your own picture if that's what you need. They've been around for years. And if you're really good, find some of those FEMA pictures that made it to the media for a very short time, but were quickly taken down. Those pictures taken by FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld who quickly becamepersonna non grata and was eventually forced to leave the country.

I am very aware that it was not just the fire that brought the buildings down. It is the NIST report that claims fires brought the towers down, not I. Express your accurate skepticism of that nonsensical story with NIST, not me.

a reply to: MrBig2430


Your standards for "proof" are very much lower than mine.

a reply to: Salander

Then answer how explosives were used to cause inward bowing leading to buckling of the outer vertical columns.

Again, the inward bowing is seen in the video in this thread.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...


During the inward bowing and buckling, there is no audible explosion with enough force to cut steel.

The inward bowing was localized and relative to the impacts and fire damage. Making it virtually impossible for any type of charges and detonation systems to actuate on command.

No sign of a pressure wave or any thing being blown out while the inward bowing takes place.

How many columns would have had to be cut by the mythical AE fizzle no flash explosives? How would their use cause pulling on the vertical columns to result in buckling? With out buckling in the floors below are above the actual buckling?

The initiation of the collapse is the most important aspect, and you don’t have an explanation through proof or science. Can you link to one? Cite or quote an explanation?

And sad you don’t see your false logic, pseudoscience, and your intellectually dishonest arguments is the hallmarks why the truth movement has no credibility.

Are you sure you are not out to make conspiracists look ridiculous, because you do a damn good job of it.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: MrBig2430
a reply to: Salander


It’s proven.

You apparently don’t have the mental capacity to understand why.

And instead have decided that nukes and no planes make sense.

That’s nuts. These two factors go hand in hand.

1- inability/unwillingness to understand reality

2- reliance on fantasy to explain things you fail to assimilate.


So, Like I’ve said before, and like all truthers, you’re either:

1- mentally impaired and can’t assimilate reality
2- trolling
3- an activist and knowingly telling lies and being outrageous in order to draw attention to your “cause”

So which is it?

Did you just insinuate that the US governments conspiracy theory about who attacked the towers and how they collapsed is "proven"

I didn’t insinuate anything, sport.

It’s a fact that all you’ve stated above has been proven.

If you disagree then tell us which of the three slots you fit into.

listening to you psychoanalyze those that do not agree to you and your conspiracy theories puts you on a whole new level of bat # crazy.

No, I’m just telling the truth.

The info has been out there long enough.

If you can’t accept it, then you may unknowingly belong in choice number one. That’s your problem, not mine.

I know it may be difficult to accept that, for everyone wants to believe in themselves and their abilities, but sometimes you just need to realize that you’re more than likely NOT smarter than most

I'm in awe with your belief in delusional conspiracy theories.

That would be truthers.

However, I’m not in awe.

I’m saddened to think that education has failed all of you.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


Your standards for "proof" are very much lower than mine.

You say this like it means something.

It doesn’t.

So which of the 3 choices describes you?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander


Are you sure you are not out to make conspiracists look ridiculous, because you do a damn good job of it.

Actually, this brings up the issue of there being a 4th and 5th category of truther

4- paid shill/disinfo agent

5- Poe

a reply to: MrBig2430

I like how the truth movement only offers these listed items to supersede inward bowing and buckling:

Nukes?
Thermite based on a fraudulent paper?
AE fizzle and no flash bombs?
Holograms and lasers.

I hate repeating this, but it never gets addressed by conspiracists.

Dr wood wrote a book that debunks the other WTC conspiracy theories, but only goes on to push Dustification?

a reply to: MrBig2430

You have been offended. I can tell.

It's ok. Just take a deep breath and count to ten.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


Your standards for "proof" are very much lower than mine.

Like to build your case for nuclear devices bringng down the towers? Only to have it decimated again!

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: liejunkie01


I'm well aware of the old saw "a picture is worth a thousand words", but are you one of those people who need a picture to understand things? A picture of events from 16 years ago? A picture that has been plastered all over the internet and media?

Find your own picture if that's what you need. They've been around for years. And if you're really good, find some of those FEMA pictures that made it to the media for a very short time, but were quickly taken down. Those pictures taken by FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld who quickly becamepersonna non grata and was eventually forced to leave the country.

I am very aware that it was not just the fire that brought the buildings down. It is the NIST report that claims fires brought the towers down, not I. Express your accurate skepticism of that nonsensical story with NIST, not me.

I think you misunderstood me or are intentionally trying to avoid the direction that I was going.

I know all about the pictures. I know about building construction. I know how to do research on my own which includes parts and pieces of the structures, shear strength of the bolts, how heat weakens steel on the atomic level, how to read blue prints, how to understand design specifications put forth by the engineers and architects, and what materials are needed to build such building, etc.....

What I wanted from you is your knowledge on the matter of how the buildings should have lasted longer with the amount of damage that was inflicted. Instead you, and I quote, "know that explosives were used".

You sure do keep bringing up the NIST report over and over and over and over again.

I have not read the NIST report and never will. I am a sheet metal worker who has completed a two year Welding technologies college program and also a two year sheetmetal/mechanical program to further my career. The Welding Technologies program had many useful classes two of which include a structural steel course and a metallurgy course.

My knowledge of the matter has come from real world hands on applications, lectures, classroom studies, and workshop hands on steel experience.

I have went as far as to calculate myself, the weight of each floor, shear strength of the bolts used to fasten the structure, how much stress the viscoelastic dampers can withstand before failure,have had multiple conversations with my instructors, and numerous other calculations to help me understand why those buildings collapsed.

I did not take the ignorance that is spewed all over the internet as gospel and did my own research on the matter.

So please spare me the ignorance and the time wasting replies that you seem so well accustomed to here in this thread and elsewhere.

You want to have a meaningful debate but you repeatedly fail to post or share any meaningful data, research, and knowledgeable facts.

Thank you and have a nice day.